Journal of Personality and Social Psychology © 2011 American Psychological Association 2011, Vol. 101, No. 6, 1332–1350 0022-3514/11/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0024951 Attitudes Toward Emotions Eddie Harmon-Jones and Cindy Harmon-Jones David M. Amodio Texas A&M University New York University Philip A. Gable University of Alabama The present work outlines a theory of attitudes toward emotions, provides a measure of attitudes toward emotions, and then tests several predictions concerning relationships between attitudes toward specific emotions and emotional situation selection, emotional traits, emotional reactivity, and emotion regula- tion. The present conceptualization of individual differences in attitudes toward emotions focuses on specific emotions and presents data indicating that 5 emotions (anger, sadness, joy, fear, and disgust) load on 5 separate attitude factors (Study 1). Attitudes toward emotions predicted emotional situation selection (Study 2). Moreover, attitudes toward approach emotions (e.g., anger, joy) correlated directly with the associated trait emotions, whereas attitudes toward withdrawal emotions (fear, disgust) correlated inversely with associated trait emotions (Study 3). Similar results occurred when attitudes toward emotions were used to predict state emotional reactivity (Study 4). Finally, attitudes toward emotions predicted specific forms of emotion regulation (Study 5). Keywords: discrete emotions, approach motivation, withdrawal motivation, emotion regulation, behav- ioral activation system (BAS) Emotions pervade subjective experience (Izard, 2009), and al- theory by assessing relationships between attitudes toward specific though often perceived as a single subjective state, emotional emotions and emotional traits, emotional reactivity, emotional experience is likely composed of many different elements. Tom- situation selection, and emotion regulation. kins (1962, 1963) and others (Ellsworth, 1994; Izard, 1971) sug- gested that the evaluation of an emotion is part of the experience of emotion. Although the importance of attitudes toward emotions Review of Past Research on Attitudes Toward was recognized almost half a century ago, the empirical study of Emotions them has been rather limited. Most research on this topic has examined cultural differences in attitudes toward emotions and not Izard (1971) considered attitudes toward emotions as part of the examined how these attitudes relate to other emotion-related vari- emotional experience. Most of the questions on his scale asked ables. participants to indicate one of the fundamental emotions as the The present research takes a new perspective on attitudes toward answer. For example, one question asked, “Which emotion do you emotions. By attitudes, we mean subjective evaluations that range most prefer to experience?” Other questions concerned under- from good to bad that are represented in memory; this definition is standing emotions and frequency of experience. Thus, this ques- consistent with social psychological definitions of attitudes (Olson tionnaire measured concepts that are not considered attitudes in & Zanna, 1993). In this research, we examine the relationship contemporary attitudes research, and its attitude questions assessed between attitudes toward the private experience of emotions and one-word (emotion) responses, making it difficult to conduct linear different aspects of emotional experience and responding. We analyses. Subsequent research on attitudes toward emotion used outline a theory of attitudes toward emotions, present a new similar measurements (Sommers, 1984). Moreover, this research method for their measurement, and test specific aspects of the focused on cultural differences. More recently, Eid and Diener (2001) found that different cul- tures have different norms for the expression and experience of This article was published Online First August 15, 2011. various emotions. In their work, participants indicated “how ap- Eddie Harmon-Jones and Cindy Harmon-Jones, Department of Psychol- propriate or desirable it is to experience certain emotions,” and ogy, Texas A&M University; David M. Amodio, Department of Psychol- responses to several one-item questions for each emotion were ogy, New York University; Philip A. Gable, Department of Psychology, assessed. They found a number of differences in the desirability of University of Alabama. different emotions across cultures. For example, individuals in This research was funded in part by grants from the National Science individualistic cultures are more likely to believe that pride is a Foundation (BCS 0643348 and BCS 0921565) awarded to Eddie Harmon- Jones. desirable emotion, whereas individuals in collectivist cultures are Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Eddie more likely to believe that guilt is a desirable emotion. Eid and Harmon-Jones, Department of Psychology, Texas A&M University, 4235 Diener noted that their results cast doubt on the classification of TAMU, College Station, TX 77845. E-mail: [email protected] emotions as positive or negative, because an emotion that is 1332 ATTITUDES TOWARD EMOTIONS 1333 considered negative in one culture may be considered positive in Also, our conceptualization emphasizes a specific emotion per- another culture. spective that is interested in differences between emotions such as Tsai, Knutson, and Fung (2006) proposed affect valuation the- fear and anger—emotions that are considered similar in the ideal ory. It proposes that (a) ideal affect, the states that people value affect framework, given that both are high in negative valence and and would ideally like to feel, differs from actual affect, the states arousal. In addition, the present work focuses on attitudes toward that people actually feel; and that (b) cultural factors shape ideal emotions rather than subjective norms about emotions, as in Eid affect more than actual affect, whereas temperament shapes actual and Diener (2001). Moreover, it goes beyond past work that has affect more than ideal affect. Affect valuation theory proposes that focused primarily on cultural differences (as in Eid & Diener, ideal affect refers to a goal and that actual affect refers to a 2001; Tsai et al., 2006), by examining individual differences in response. Whereas ideal affect requires some understanding of attitudes toward emotions within a culture and how they predict different affective states and their contingencies, actual affect does other important emotion-related variables. not. Finally, because this theorizing assumes that most people want We believe that both discrete and dimensional approaches are to feel good, ideal affect should primarily involve different posi- important, and their importance for a given research question tive states, whereas actual affect should instead involve the entire likely depends on the level of analysis of the emotional process spectrum of affective states. Moreover, variation in ideal affect is under consideration (e.g., feeling, physiology, behavioral expres- predicted to be primarily due to cultural ideas and practices. sion). Several dimensions likely underlie discrete emotions. Va- Building on a Valence ϫ Arousal model of affect, Tsai and lence and arousal dimensions have received much research atten- colleagues assessed ideal values for positive versus negative va- tion, but they do not fully capture emotional space, as research has lence as a function of low versus high arousal. European Ameri- revealed important distinctions between fear and anger (Carver & cans were found to value high-arousal positive states more and Harmon-Jones, 2009; E. Harmon-Jones & Peterson, 2008; Lerner low-arousal positive states less than Chinese individuals (Tsai, & Keltner, 2001; Mendes, Major, McCoy, & Blascovich, 2008), 2007). two emotions that occupy identical space in a Valence ϫ Arousal model. Adding the dimension of motivational direction—approach A Theory of Attitudes Toward Emotions versus withdrawal—assists us in understanding some differences between anger and fear, as anger is often approach motivating The present work on attitudes toward emotions extends past (Carver & Harmon-Jones, 2009), whereas fear is often withdrawal work. We conceive of emotional experience as involving many motivating (K. A. Buss et al., 2003). However, the addition of elements. Individuals report differences in feelings of arousal and motivational direction does not assist in separating fear from valence. Individuals also have subjective experiences of the action disgust. Indeed, other dimensions beyond valence, arousal, and tendencies of emotions (Frijda, 1986). And there are likely many motivational direction are important in characterizing emotions other aspects that compose emotional experience. We posit that (Frijda, & Tcherkassof, 1997). part of emotional experience may be the subjective evaluation of In agreement with past research showing many cultural similar- the private emotional experience or the attitude toward emotion. ities in attitudes toward emotions, our theory predicts that the An individual in a bout of anger may feel aroused, may feel range and quality of individual differences in attitudes toward negative about the perceived cause of the anger, may feel tenden- emotions are likely restricted by evolutionary, universal mecha- cies toward screaming, and may really dislike the experience of nisms. In other words, attitudes toward positive emotions, such as anger. joy, are likely more positive than attitudes toward negative emo-